What I find most appalling about our currentWhat I find most appalling about currently struggle about the funding for the "surge" of the Escalator is how a Democratically controlled Congress does not invoke the Constitution.
Remember the Constitution, our social contract that binds as a nation? Well, in Article 1, there are many sets of rules on how our republic is suppose operate, with this article concerning itself with the Congress.
Like Section 8, which proves Congress, and Congress only, has the purse strings for the armed forces:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
Now two quick points on this:
- Some say this is no longer binding because appropriations are made annually, or in Bush's case, quarterly. No longer in a big chunk to be used through out the conflict. To those critics, I say, then amend the Constitution and you have a point. Otherwise, it is unConstitutional continue to fund the Armed Forces in our current matter.
The Founding Fathers specifically put this clause in so we didn't have a large standing army during times of peace. You know, to keep the military-industrial complex from every arising. Their future predicting ability is awe inspiring, to bad we're pissing on the Constitution on this.
- The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq was brought about in 2002. That was over four years ago. In another universe or parallel time line, where the United States of America actually follows the Constitution, the President is due this year to justify another appropriation for the Iraq War before Congress. Congress, and only Congress, has the power to fund this war. Who says so? Just the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
So as you can see, Congress, if and when they ever find their spine, they can simply point out this in the Constitution and tell the Bush Administration they are dreaming. Or President Bush will have to say he is above the Constitution, which he usually does anyway. But this will put it in stark contrast for members of the public who still believe we should still be following the Constitution.
And oh, Section 8 has some other chestnuts you should check out:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
While Letters of Marque and Reprisal went out fashion after Tripoli, rules concerning captures and regulation of the land and naval forces brings up an interesting point. It is Congress, not the Executive branch who is vested by Constitution to determine the status of combatants captured in conflict.
This means it is in Congress's power to regulate the rules of prisoners of Guantánamo Bay. It is in Congress's power to give the shelter of justice and liberty by lifting the status of "illegal combatants", and moving towards "Prison of War." Who says so? Just the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
And while they play the Unitary Executive card, this has already been to court, the Supreme Court actually, in Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137. Oddly enough, this case revolved around a lack of habeas corpus and military trials. Someone has to teach Bush about Google. In case you were wondering about the outcome of the trial, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exclusive hold on setting rules and regulations of our Armed Forces.
Why no elected member of Congress, who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, are not bringing up salient points in said Constitution, is beyond me.
But seriously, Article 1, Section 8, has all the information we need to correct the power grab by the Executive Branch, but only if we, the people, decide to start following the Constitution again.